utah commission on criminal and juvenile ...usaav.utah.gov/alcohol/2013 dui annual...

U T A H C O M M I S S I O N O N C R I M I N A L A N D J U V E N I L E J U S T I C E

EElleevveenntthh AAnnnnuuaall DDUUII RReeppoorrtt ttoo tthhee UUttaahh LLeeggiissllaattuurree

CCJJ Utah State Capitol Complex

Senate Office Building, Suite 330 P.O. Box 142330

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2330 Phone: 801-538-1031 • Fax: 801-538-1024

http://justice.utah.gov

3333333

2013

http://justice.utah.gov/

Acknowledgements The Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice gratefully acknowledges the following agencies for providing the data for this report: the Administrative Office of the Courts; the Utah Department of Human Services, Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health; and several divisions within the Utah Department of Public Safety, including the Highway Patrol, Driver License Division, and Highway Safety Office. Special thanks to Marty Asay, George Braden, Art Brown, Kim Gibb, Ron Gordon, Sandi Johnson, Gary Mower, Teri Pectol, Ben Peterson, Jacey Skinner, Briant Smith, Sgt. Ted Tingey, David Walsh, Holly Watson and Doreen Weyland for their contributions and assistance in preparing this report.

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 DUI in Utah FY 2013 1

1 Introduction 3 Purpose of the Report 4 2013 DUI Legislation 5 USAAV DUI Committee 7

2 Law Enforcement 9 DUI Arrests 9 DUI Arrests by Violation Type 9 DUI Overtime Enforcement Events 10 DUI Arrests by Agency Type 10 DUI Arrests by Gender 10 DUI Arrests by Age 11 DUI Arrests by Blood/Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) 11 DUI Arrests by Month 12 DUI Arrests by County 13 DUI Arrest Rates by Population 14 Repeat DUI Offenders by Type of Arrest 14 DUI-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities 15 DUI/Alcohol-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities 15 DUI/Drug-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities 16 Rates of DUI-Related Fatalities by Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled 16 Month, Day and Hour of Alcohol-Impaired Driver Crashes 17 Use of State Beer Tax Funds for DUI Law Enforcement 17

3 Adjudications and Sanctions 19 Justice Court DUI Data 19 Justice Court DUI Cases and Outcomes 19 Justice Court Repeat DUI Offender Data 19 Justice Court DUI Case Information and Sanctions 20 District Court DUI Data 21 District Court DUI Case Outcomes 21 District Court Repeat DUI Offender Data 21 District Court DUI Case Information and Sanctions 22

4 Driver License Control 23 Alcohol Hearing Statistics 23

5 Screening, Assessment, Education and Treatment 25 Screening and Assessment 25 Education 25 Treatment 28

6 Utah’s Impaired Driving Media Campaign 29

Utah DUI Sentencing Matrix

Statistical Note: Due to rounding, data in the tables in this report may not add up exactly to the totals indicated.

E L E V E N T H A N N U A L D U I R E P O R T T O T H E U T A H L E G I S L A T U R E

1

Executive Summary DUI in Utah FY 2013

DUI-Related Fatalities in CY 2012 ◘ From CY 2011 to CY 2012, DUI/alcohol-related fatalities in Utah decreased from

39 to 20, but DUI/drug-related fatalities increased from 30 to 37.

Law Enforcement: Arrests ◘ There were 12,227 DUI arrests in FY 2013, 804 fewer than in the previous year.

This represents a decrease of over six percent, and a decrease of over 11 percent since FY 2011.

◘ Almost 81 percent of the arrests were for per se violations that included driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both.

◘ Not a Drop violations by persons under the legal drinking age of 21 decreased almost 8 percent, with a decrease of over 22 percent since FY 2011.

◘ Arrests included 996 made during specialized DUI overtime enforcement events such as enforcement blitzes, saturation patrols, and DUI sobriety checkpoints that involved 104 law enforcement agencies throughout the state.

◘ Fifty-three percent of all DUI arrests were made by municipal law enforcement agencies.

◘ Nearly 72 percent of DUI drivers were male.

◘ Almost 12 percent of arrestees were under the legal drinking age of 21.

Executive Summary


2

◘ The average BAC was .146; the highest was .42, over five times the legal limit.

◘ The majority of DUI arrests occurred along the Wasatch Front with Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties accounting for 71 percent of the total.

◘ About 69 percent of arrests were for a first DUI offense, 20 percent were for a second offense, seven percent were for a third offense, and four percent were for a fourth or subsequent offense.

◘ From CY 2011 to CY 2012, the percentage of total crash fatalities that were DUI/alcohol-related decreased from 16.0 percent to 9.2 percent.

◘ From CY 2011 to CY 2012, the percentage of total crash fatalities that were DUI/drug-related increased from 12.3 percent to 17.1 percent.

Courts: Adjudications and Sanctions ◘ In FY 2013, there were 9,023 DUI cases in Utah’s Justice Courts. Among the

cases resolved, almost 58 percent resulted in a guilty plea or verdict.

◘ Justice Court judges ordered offenders to participate in an educational series in 2,629 cases, ordered offenders into substance use disorder treatment in 2,144 cases, and ordered ignition interlock devices in 767 cases.

◘ In FY 2013, there were 2,305 DUI cases disposed by the state’s District Courts. Among the cases resolved, almost 76 percent resulted in a guilty plea or verdict.

◘ District Court judges ordered offenders to participate in an educational series in 308 cases, ordered offenders into substance use disorder treatment in 630 cases, and ordered ignition interlock devices in 275 cases.

Driver License Control ◘ The Driver License Division conducted 5,206 hearings in FY 2013 to determine

if there was sufficient information to warrant the suspension or revocation of the individual’s driver license.

Assessment, Education and Treatment ◘ Eighty-one percent of participants who completed the PRIME for Life program,

Utah’s court-ordered educational series for DUI offenders, reported they were highly motivated to reduce to or maintain their drinking at low-risk levels.


3

Introduction mbrosia Amalathithada-Ramseyer, a little girl with her whole life ahead of her, “was a ray of sunshine to all who knew her”. On the afternoon of March 14, 2012, following a tutoring lesson with her teacher at Whittier Elementary School, the six-year-old was in a crosswalk with her mother near Kensington Avenue (1500 South) and State Street in Salt Lake City, when the two

were struck by a driver who did not yield. While 46-year-old Janeen Lundberg said she saw Ambrosia and her mother Natalie three to four car lengths away, witnesses and the physical evidence indicated she hit the two after swerving around cars stopped to allow the two to cross, hit the median, and continued into the crosswalk without applying her brakes.

Natalie Amalathithada-Randell suffered broken legs, a broken pelvis, a skull fracture and brain injury. Little Ambrosia suffered blunt force trauma to her head and passed away the following day after being taken off life support at Primary Children’s Medical Center.

Toxicology reports showed Janeen Lundberg was under the influence of a combination of multiple prescription and non-prescription (over-the- counter) central nervous system (CNS) depressants at the time she struck Ambrosia and her mother in the crosswalk. The drugs in her system included those categorized as pain relievers, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, and antihistamines. Side effects of such drugs include CNS depression, sedation, drowsiness, dizziness, and impaired reflexes. According to the testimony of one expert witness, “Ms. Lundberg was presented with a simple traffic pattern that should have been easily and safely managed; she did not appreciate that the vehicles in front of her were stopped at the crosswalk, nor did she recognize the potential for pedestrians in the crosswalk despite several signals to that effect; she did not perceive and react to the traffic until just prior to impact and when she did react, she over responded and over corrected. Ms. Lundberg’s ability to operate her motor vehicle was significantly impaired by the drugs present in her system.” According to her own statement, Ms. Lundberg said that “prior to the crash, she stopped to purchase coffee and NoDoz™ to make sure she would be safe because she had not slept well the night before.”

Janeen Lundberg was ordered to stand trial on charges of second degree automobile homicide or second degree manslaughter; driving under the influence of drugs with serious bodily injury, a third degree felony; failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, a class C misdemeanor; and making an illegal turn, a class C misdemeanor. Trial was averted when Ms. Lundberg entered into a plea deal on September 9, 2013, where she pled guilty to a reduced count of automobile homicide as a third degree felony, and to driving under the influence of drugs with serious bodily injury, also a third degree felony. On December 16, 2013, Ms. Lundberg was sentenced to 0-5 years in prison for each count, to be served concurrently.

Introduction

1 A

Information for this story and the story on the following page was obtained from the Information, Warrant of Arrest, Witness Statement and Sentencing Memorandum provided by the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office; as well as articles in the Deseret News and The Salt Lake Tribune, and reports on the ksl.com and The CW30 websites.

Ambrosia Amalathithada-Ramseyer 2005 - 2012

While DUI/alcohol-related fatalities in Utah decreased from 39 in CY 2011 to 20 in CY 2012,

DUI/drug-related fatalities, including those involving illicit, prescription and

over-the-counter drugs, are on the rise and increased from 30 in 2011 to 37 in 2012.

Following are the stories of two drug-related DUI tragedies that were completely

preventable.


4

hristmas Eve 2011 changed the lives of the Pack family forever. As they were traveling home to American Fork from a holiday party, a Suburban crossed the median at 9600 South and 1000

West in West Jordan and hit their Subaru Outback head-on. Ryan and Kelly Pack, and their two young sons, 3-year-old Finn and 18-month-old Colum, were all hospitalized with serious injuries. Baby Colum passed away in his parents’ arms just hours later, on Christmas Day. The driver of the Suburban, 55-year-old Thomas Ainsworth, was allegedly reaching for his cell phone when he lost control of his vehicle and crashed into the Pack family. Results of toxicology tests showed Ainsworth, who was also injured in the collision, had methamphetamine and marijuana metabolite in his system. In March of 2012, he was charged with driving with a measurable controlled substance in his body and causing death, and two counts of driving with a measurable controlled substance in his body and causing serious bodily injury, all second degree felonies. He was also charged with crossing over the median, a class C misdemeanor. In July 2013, Ainsworth pled guilty to three counts of negligent driving that caused injury or death; in exchange for admitting guilt, charges of crossing the median and driving without insurance were dropped. In September 2013, Thomas Ainsworth was given the maximum sentence of one to 15 years for each count, to be served consecutively.

Ryan and Kelly Pack’s injuries were so severe that initially they were physically unable to care for their surviving son. Today, although their physical injuries still restrict them, Ryan, Kelly and Finn are trying to move on with their lives. But the emotional injuries from that Christmas Eve may be more difficult to overcome. Consider Kelly Pack’s heartache when she said of little Colum, “I will never get to see those beautiful blue eyes and that big mischievous smile ever again.”

Purpose of the Report The Eleventh Annual Driving Under the Influence Report to the Utah Legislature was prepared in accordance with §41-6a-511 of the Utah Code. The statute requires the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to prepare an annual report of DUI related data, including the following:

Data collected by the state courts to allow sentencing and enhancement decisions to be made in accordance with violations involving driving under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs;

Data collected by the justice courts (same DUI related data elements collected by the state courts); and

Any measures for which data are available to evaluate the profile and impacts of DUI recidivism and to evaluate the DUI related processes of:

o law enforcement;

o adjudication;

o sanctions;

o driver license control; and

o alcohol education, assessment, and treatment.

C

Colum Jacob Pack 2010 - 2011


5

2013 DUI Legislation

The following bills and appropriation were passed by the Utah Legislature in the 2013 General Session:

S.B. 13 Amendments to Ignition Interlock Program Senator Daniel W. Thatcher

This bill provides that the Driver License Division may only clear the suspension for an ignition interlock violation if the division electronically verifies that the person does not have a vehicle registered in the person’s name in the state of Utah, rather than a vehicle registered in any state.

S.B. 146 Driving Under the Influence Amendments

Senator Scott K. Jenkins

This bill establishes minimum hours that a court shall require a person to participate in home confinement, if the court orders home confinement through the use of electronic monitoring for a first, second, or felony driving under the influence offense. Provides that a court may order the imposition of an ankle attached continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring device as a condition of probation if a person is convicted of a driving under the influence violation and there is admissible evidence that the person had a blood alcohol level of .16 or higher.

H.B. 128 Driver License Suspension Modifications Representative Douglas V. Sagers

This bill amends the driver license suspension periods for a person who is under 19 years of age and is convicted of certain alcohol and drug related offenses. Amends the amount of time that a court may shorten a person’s driver license suspension for certain alcohol or drug related offenses prior to the completion of the suspension period if the person is under 19 years of age and completes certain requirements. Amends the administrative suspension periods for persons under 19 years of age who have violated certain alcohol or drug related offenses.


6

Appropriation Alcoholic Beverage Enforcement and Treatment Restricted Account The 2013 Legislature appropriated $5,463,800 to the Alcoholic Beverage Enforcement and Treatment Restricted Account (§32B-2-401) for FY 2014. Funding from this account is distributed annually on a formula basis to Utah’s municipalities and counties to be used for one or more of the following purposes: (1) alcohol-related prevention/ education; (2) treatment of offenders with alcohol problems; (3) alcohol-related law enforcement, including DUI; (4) prosecution of alcohol-related cases; and (5) confinement of alcohol law offenders.


7

USAAV DUI Committee

The Utah Substance Abuse Advisory Council maintains a DUI Committee whose members represent state and local agencies and organizations dealing with the DUI issue in Utah. The Committee works closely with the Legislature to recommend and review proposed legislation that will strengthen Utah’s ability to more effectively address the DUI problem.

USAAV DUI Committee Membership Senator Stuart Adams Senator

Utah State Senate David Beach Director, Utah Highway Safety Office

Utah Department of Public Safety Edward Berkovich

Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Utah Prosecution Council

Bart Blackstock Citizen Member and Former Deputy Director of the Driver License Division, Utah Department of Public Safety

Paul Boyden, Chair Executive Director Statewide Association of Prosecutors

Art Brown Representative of DUI Victims, Past President of the Utah Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Patty Fox Probation Program Manager Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services

Colonel Daniel Fuhr Superintendent, Utah Highway Patrol Utah Department of Public Safety

Kim Gibb, Vice Chair Records Bureau Chief, Driver License Division Utah Department of Public Safety

Chief Wayne Hansen Farmington Police Department Utah Chiefs of Police Association

Linda Mayne Education Specialist for Driver Education Utah State Office of Education

Doug Murakami Director of Alcohol Education Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

Sheriff Frank Park Tooele County Sheriff’s Office Utah Sheriffs Association

Teri Pectol Impaired Driving/Youth Alcohol Program Manager, Utah Highway Safety Office, Utah Department of Public Safety

Richard Schwermer Assistant State Court Administrator Administrative Office of the Courts

Holly Watson Substance Abuse Education Program Manager Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Mary Lou Emerson, Director Utah Substance Abuse Advisory Council


8


9

Law Enforcement The Utah Department of Public Safety, through its Driver License Division and Highway Safety Office, collects information on all DUI arrests. In FY 2013, law enforcement officers made 12,227 DUI arrests. This was 804 fewer than in FY 2012, representing a decrease of over six percent, and a decrease of over 11 percent since FY 2011.

DUI Arrests DUI Arrests by Violation Type As illustrated in the following table, the distribution of DUI arrests by type of violation in FY 2013 was very similar to previous years. Nearly 81 percent of the arrests were for per se violations where the driver had a .08 or greater blood/breath alcohol concentration, or was impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two to the extent it was unsafe to operate a vehicle. Under Utah law, drivers are considered to have given consent to tests of breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids to determine whether they are driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Almost 12 percent of arrests were for refusal to submit to a chemical test. It is also illegal to drive with any measurable controlled substance metabolite in one’s body, which accounted for almost two percent of arrests. Violations of the Not a Drop statute, by persons under the age of 21 who drove with any measurable alcohol concentration in their body, accounted for 4.5 percent of the arrests, a decrease of nearly eight percent from the previous year and 22.5 percent since FY 2011. The fewest arrests were of commercial drivers exceeding the .04 limit, which represented only 0.1 percent of the total.

DUI Arrests by Violation Type

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Percent Change

FY 12–FY 13 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Per se Alcohol/Drug 11,586 83.9% 10,911 83.7% 9,872 80.7% -9.5% Refusal of Chemical Test 1,324 9.6% 1,350 10.4% 1,415 11.6% +4.8% Not a Drop (< 21) 706 5.1% 594 4.6% 547 4.5% -7.9% Drug Metabolite 185 1.3% 149 1.1% 191 1.6% +28.2% Commercial Driver (.04) 15 0.1% 27 0.2% 17 0.1% -37.0% Unknown (no box marked) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 185 1.5% NA TOTAL 13,816 100.0% 13,031 100.0% 12,227 100.0% -6.2% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division

Law Enforcement

2


10

DUI Overtime Enforcement Events The arrests made in FY 2013 included those that occurred as a result of specialized DUI overtime enforcement events such as enforcement blitzes, saturation patrols, and DUI checkpoints. A portion of the DUI impound fees collected was specifically designated to fund the overtime shifts. During FY 2013, 104 law enforcement agencies throughout the state participated in overtime events, including local police agencies, sheriffs’ offices, the Utah Highway Patrol, Motor Vehicle Enforcement, Utah Parks and Recreation, Utah Wildlife Resources, and three university police departments.

The table below shows the measures associated with DUI overtime enforcement events in FY 2013. Of the total 996 DUI arrests, 768 were for alcohol, 155 were for other drugs, and 73 were for drug metabolite.

Statewide DUI Overtime Enforcement Events FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Percent Change

FY 12 – FY 13 DUI Shifts Worked 2,183 2,116 2,306 +9.0% Vehicles Stopped 21,352 19,313 26,306 +36.2% DUI Arrests 1,020 972 996 +2.5% Vehicles Impounded 929 915 629 -31.3% Alcohol-Related Arrests* 640 566 634 +12.0% Drug-Related Arrests** 509 468 489 +4.5% Warrants Served 465 384 424 +10.4% Other Warnings/Citations 17,547 17,425 21,370 +22.6% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Highway Safety Office *Includes open container and underage/youth alcohol violations (e.g., possession, consumption, attempted purchase, Not a Drop) **Felony and misdemeanor (e.g., drug possession)

DUI Arrests by Agency Type Fifty-three percent of all DUI arrests in FY 2013 were made by municipal law enforcement agencies, with the Utah Highway Patrol responsible for almost 35 percent, and county sheriffs’ offices responsible for almost 12 percent.

DUI Arrests by Agency Type

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Sheriffs’ Offices 1,787 12.9% 1,873 14.4% 1,439 11.8% City Police/Other 7,140 51.7% 6,586 50.5% 6,542 53.5% Highway Patrol 4,889 35.4% 4,572 35.1% 4,246 34.7% TOTAL 13,816 100.0% 13,031 100.0% 12,227 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division

DUI Arrests by Gender The table on the following page shows the proportions of male and female arrestees have remained fairly consistent over the past three years. In FY 2013, nearly 72 percent of arrestees were male and 27 percent were female.


11

DUI Arrests by Gender


Male 10,109 73.2% 9,448 72.5% 8,753 71.6% Female 3,663 26.5% 3,539 27.2% 3,369 27.5% Unspecified 44 0.3% 44 0.3% 105 0.9% TOTAL 13,816 100.0% 13,031 100.0% 12,227 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division

DUI Arrests by Age The youngest DUI driver in FY 2013 was 13 years old, and the oldest were 79-81 years of age. Nearly 12 percent of arrestees were under the legal drinking age of 21, an increase of nearly 40 percent since the previous year. Drivers ages 25-36 accounted for nearly 40 percent of all arrests for DUI.

DUI Arrests by Age


Age Unknown 1 < 0.1% 4 < 0.1% 0 0.0% Ages 13-20 1,303 9.4% 1,046 8.0% 1,460 11.9% Ages 21-24 2,458 17.8% 2,271 17.4% 2,144 17.5% Ages 25-36 5,411 39.2% 5,275 40.5% 4,838 39.6% Ages 37-48 2,737 19.8% 2,612 20.0% 2,231 18.3% Ages 49-87 1,906 13.8% 1,823 14.0% 1,554 12.7% TOTAL 13,816 100.0% 13,031 100.0% 12,227 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division

DUI Arrests by Blood/Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) The average BAC in FY 2013 was .146 (median BAC was .14), the same as in the past several years. The highest BAC recorded was .42, over five times the legal limit!

DUI Arrests by BAC FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

BAC Results Not Reported 3,994 28.9% 4,929 37.8% 4,573* 37.4% .008 - .07 813 5.9% 763 5.9% 528 4.3% .08 - .10 1,402 10.1% 1,334 10.2% 1,043 8.5% .11 - .15 2,528 18.3% 2,457 18.9% 2,160 17.7% .16 - .20 1,833 13.3% 1,614 12.4% 1,589 13.0% .21 - .25 807 5.8% 729 5.6% 659 5.4% .26 - .45 314 2.3% 312 2.4% 265 2.2%

Refused BAC Test 1,345 9.7% 276 2.1% 1,410 11.5% No Test/Unknown 495 3.6% 617 4.7% Not Available

Drug Only 285 2.1% 0 0.0% Not Available TOTAL 13,816 100.0% 13,031 100.0% 12,227 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division *Arrestee may have submitted to a blood test, but the Driver License Division never received the results, or this was a DUI/drug-related arrest and there was no BAC.


12

According to a 2011 report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to reach a BAC of .14, a 160-pound man would need to consume between five and seven beers within one hour (see table below).1

DUI Arrests by Month As in previous years, DUI arrests remained fairly consistent throughout FY 2013, with an average of 1,019 arrests per month. The highest number of arrests occurred in March (1,210), with the lowest number of arrests in April (862).

DUI Arrests by Month


July 1,359 9.8% 1,309 10.0% 1,055 8.6% August 1,264 9.1% 1,086 8.3% 1,052 8.6% September 1,152 8.3% 1,188 9.1% 1,058 8.6% October 1,303 9.4% 1,190 9.1% 956 7.8% November 965 7.0% 1,019 7.8% 1,041 8.5% December 1,094 7.9% 1,065 8.2% 1,138 9.3% January 1,202 8.7% 1,016 7.8% 915 7.5% February 1,061 7.7% 1,022 7.8% 1,006 8.3% March 1,178 8.5% 1,067 8.2% 1,210 9.9% April 1,095 7.9% 992 7.6% 862 7.1% May 1,128 8.2% 1,052 8.1% 986 8.1% June 1,015 7.3% 1,025 7.9% 948 7.7% TOTAL 13,816 100.0% 13,031 100.0% 12,227 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vitalsigns, Drinking and Driving: A Threat to Everyone, October 2011.


13

DUI Arrests by County Consistent with past years, the majority of DUI arrests during FY 2013 occurred along the Wasatch Front with Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties accounting for 71 percent (8,697) of the total. Salt Lake County had the highest number of arrests with 5,096 (41.7%), while Wayne County had the fewest arrests with one (.01%). The table below also compares the percentage of DUI arrests to the percentage of both total population and vehicle miles traveled in each county.

County DUI Arrests

FY 2013 July 1, 2012

Utah Population Estimates

Vehicle Miles Traveled Calendar Year 2012

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Beaver 49 0.40% 6,589 0.23% 252,117,515 0.95% Box Elder 145 1.19% 50,705 1.78% 877,987,924 3.30% Cache 391 3.20% 115,851 4.06% 876,333,868 3.29% Carbon 135 1.10% 21,431 0.75% 305,487,505 1.15% Daggett 12 0.10% 1,107 0.04% 30,438,948 0.11% Davis 1,064 8.70% 317,248 11.12% 2,531,978,716 9.51% Duchesne 195 1.59% 19,572 0.69% 275,632,039 1.03% Emery 64 0.52% 10,846 0.38% 381,235,825 1.43% Garfield 18 0.15% 5,125 0.18% 110,821,951 0.42% Grand 149 1.22% 9,420 0.33% 320,551,102 1.20% Iron 236 1.93% 46,883 1.64% 700,741,148 2.63% Juab 113 0.92% 10,426 0.37% 384,471,346 1.44% Kane 40 0.33% 7,282 0.26% 171,426,081 0.64% Millard 80 0.65% 12,625 0.44% 455,557,644 1.71% Morgan 25 0.20% 9,913 0.35% 132,992,730 0.50% Piute 4 0.03% 1,537 0.05% 28,419,196 0.11% Rich 15 0.12% 2,255 0.08% 49,199,382 0.18% Salt Lake 5,096 41.68% 1,059,112 37.13% 8,748,849,791 32.84% San Juan 80 0.65% 15,232 0.53% 307,019,232 1.15% Sanpete 60 0.49% 28,067 0.98% 205,894,610 0.77% Sevier 112 0.92% 20,914 0.73% 319,951,941 1.20% Summit 255 2.09% 37,704 1.32% 728,385,245 2.73% Tooele 440 3.60% 59,984 2.10% 823,015,404 3.09% Uintah 353 2.89% 34,435 1.21% 414,298,005 1.56% Utah 1,450 11.86% 541,378 18.98% 3,830,963,768 14.38% Wasatch 155 1.27% 25,354 0.89% 334,601,920 1.26% Washington 402 3.29% 143,352 5.03% 1,379,312,655 5.18% Wayne 1 0.01% 2,725 0.10% 47,366,479 0.18% Weber 1,087 8.89% 235,517 8.26% 1,612,361,237 6.05% Unknown 1 0.01% Not Applicable Not Applicable

TOTAL 12,227 100.00% 2,852,589 100.00% 26,637,413,207 100.00% Source for DUI Arrest Data: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division Source for Population Data: Utah Population Estimates Committee Source for Vehicle Miles Traveled: Utah Department of Transportation


14

DUI Arrest Rates by Population The following table and figure illustrate the number of DUI arrests made in Utah by fiscal year, compared to the state’s population. While Utah’s population has continued to grow, the DUI arrest rate has declined steadily since FY 2009.

Utah DUI Arrests Compared to Population FY 2004 - FY 2013

Fiscal Year

DUI Arrests

Population as of July 1

DUI Arrest Rate*

2004 14,461 2,372,457 60.95 2005 13,675 2,430,224 56.27 2006 14,138 2,505,844 56.42 2007 14,658 2,576,228 56.90 2008 15,297 2,636,077 58.03 2009 15,683 2,691,122 58.28 2010 15,285 2,731,558 55.96 2011 13,816 2,774,663 49.79 2012 13,031 2,813,923 46.31 2013 12,227 2,852,589 42.86

Source of DUI Arrest Data: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division Source of Population Data: Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, Utah Population Estimates Committee (as of July 1 of fiscal year) *DUI arrest rate is the number of DUI arrests per 10,000 people

Repeat DUI Offenders by Type of Arrest The following table shows repeat offender data by type of DUI-related arrest. Data were calculated by identifying arrests that occurred in FY 2013 as a starting point, then counting back ten years to determine previous arrests. Each arrest was placed in a column determined by the type of the arrest or violation. Nearly 69 percent of arrests were for a first offense, 20 percent were for a second offense, seven percent were for a third offense, and almost four percent were for a fourth or subsequent offense.

FY 2013 Arrest

Type

Per se Alcohol

(.08)/ Drug

Refusal of

Chemical Test

Not a Drop (< 21)

Drug Metabolite

Commercial Driver (.04) U

nkno

wn

(no

box

mar

ked)

TOTAL

Offense Number Percent

1st 6,909 784 499 159 16 64 8,431 68.9% 2nd 1,964 369 33 23 1 71 2,461 20.1% 3rd 668 142 14 6 0 32 862 7.0% 4th 220 60 1 3 0 8 292 2.4% 5th 68 36 0 0 0 6 110 0.9% 6th 28 13 0 0 0 1 42 0.4% 7th 10 8 0 0 0 3 21 0.2%

8th- 9th 5 3 0 0 0 0 8 0.1% TOTAL 9,872 1,415 547 191 17 185 12,227 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division


15

DUI-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities DUI/Alcohol-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities The figure below illustrates the trend in Utah’s DUI/alcohol-related crash fatalities from calendar years 2003 through 2012.

Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Highway Safety Office

The following table shows the total number of DUI-related vehicle crashes involving alcohol for each calendar year from 2003 to 2012, including the number of persons injured and the number of persons killed as a result of the crashes. The number of DUI-related fatalities involving drivers with a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater in Utah decreased from 39 in calendar year 2011 to 20 in calendar year 2012, or nearly 49 percent.

DUI/Alcohol-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities in Utah, CY 2003-2012

Calendar Year

Crashes Injuries Fatalities Total

Crashes DUI/

Alcohol Crashes*

Percent DUI/

Alcohol

Total Injured

Persons

DUI/ Alcohol Injured

Persons

Percent DUI/

Alcohol

Total Crash

Fatalities

DUI/ Alcohol

Fatalities**

Percent DUI/

Alcohol

2003 50,389 1,952 3.9% 28,352 1,360 4.8% 309 29 9.4% 2004 53,905 1,948 3.6% 29,638 1,570 5.3% 296 56 18.9% 2005 54,938 1,977 3.6% 29,221 1,398 4.8% 282 22 7.8% 2006 56,187 2,488 4.4% 27,433 1,844 6.7% 287 39 13.6% 2007 61,245 2,718 4.4% 27,420 1,900 6.9% 299 42 14.0% 2008 56,367 2,330 4.1% 24,673 1,596 6.5% 276 34 12.3% 2009 51,367 2,019 3.9% 22,847 1,288 5.6% 244 31 12.7% 2010 49,368 1,723 3.5% 21,675 1,150 5.3% 253 25 9.9% 2011 52,287 1,662 3.2% 22,325 1,019 4.6% 243 39 16.0% 2012 50,600 1,727 3.4% 22,336 1,043 4.7% 217 20 9.2%

Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Highway Safety Office *DUI-related crashes include only those incidents that involved alcohol. **DUI-related fatalities include only drivers with a BAC of ≥ .08.

Percentage of Total Crash Fatalities That Were DUI/Alcohol-Related in Utah, Calendar Years 2003-2012


16

DUI/Drug-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities The table below shows the number of DUI-related vehicle crashes, injuries and fatalities involving drugs only (no alcohol or BAC less than .08) for available years. The most common types of drugs found in fatal drug-related crashes are THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) and methamphetamine. Although the number of DUI/drug-related crashes decreased from CY 2011 to CY 2012, the number of deaths increased from 30 to 37, a 23 percent increase.

DUI/Drug-Related Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities in Utah, CY 2007-2012

Calendar Year

Crashes Injuries Fatalities Total

Crashes DUI/ Drug

Crashes*

Percent DUI/ Drug

Total Injured

Persons

DUI/Drug Injured

Persons

Percent DUI/ Drug

Total Crash

Fatalities DUI/Drug

Fatalities** Percent

DUI/ Drug

2007 61,245 158 0.3% 27,420 113 0.4% 299 16 5.4% 2008 56,367 565 1.0% 24,673 428 1.7% 276 12 4.3% 2009 51,367 547 1.1% 22,847 443 1.9% 244 36 14.8% 2010 49,368 525 1.1% 21,675 382 1.8% 253 26 10.3% 2011 52,287 603 1.1% 22,325 388 1.7% 243 30 12.3% 2012 50,600 548 1.1% 22,336 383 1.7% 217 37 17.1%

Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Highway Safety Office *DUI/drug-related crashes include only those incidents that involved drugs and no alcohol. **DUI/drug-related fatalities include only drivers who tested positive for drugs and had a BAC of < .08. Note: Drug presence does not necessarily imply impairment. For many drug types, drug presence can be detected long after any impairment that might affect driving has passed. Also, whereas the impairment effects for various concentration levels of alcohol is well understood, little evidence is available to link concentrations of other drug types to driver performance.

Rates of DUI-Related Fatalities by Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled The following table shows the rates of DUI-related fatalities per 10,000 population and per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in Utah, for calendar years 2003 through 2012.

Calendar Year

Rates of DUI-Related Fatalities per 10,000 Population and 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled in Utah, Calendar Years 2003-2012

DUI-Related

Fatalities*

DUI-Related Fatality Rates per 10,000 Population

DUI-Related Fatality Rates per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled

Population as of July 1 Rate Vehicle Miles

Traveled Rate

2003 29 2,372,457 0.12 23,946,840,430 0.12 2004 56 2,430,224 0.23 24,624,791,795 0.23 2005 22 2,505,844 0.09 25,129,538,952 0.09 2006 39 2,576,228 0.15 26,166,885,473 0.15 2007 42 2,636,077 0.16 26,824,244,333 0.16 2008 34 2,691,122 0.13 25,883,467,343 0.13 2009 31 2,731,558 0.11 26,217,108,843 0.12 2010 25 2,774,663 0.09 26,617,169,711 0.09 2011 39 2,813,923 0.14 26,379,900,505 0.15 2012 20 2,852,589 0.07 26,637,413,207 0.08

Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Highway Safety Office *DUI-related fatalities include only those incidents that involved alcohol and where the driver had a BAC of ≥ .08.


17

The figure below illustrates the rates of DUI-related fatalities in Utah for calendar years 2003 through 2012, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. From CY 2011 to CY 2012, the DUI-related fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled decreased from 0.15 to 0.08.

Rate Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled of DUI-Related Fatalities in Utah, Calendar Years 2003-2012

Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Highway Safety Office

Month, Day and Hour of Alcohol-Impaired Driver Crashes The Utah Highway Safety Office reports in calendar year 2012 the highest rates per day of alcohol-impaired driver crashes were in June (5.5), August (5.3), and November (5.2), with the lowest rate per day in March (4.0). The highest rate per day of fatal alcohol-impaired driver crashes occurred in October (0.10) and December (0.10). The highest percentages of alcohol-impaired driver total crashes occurred on Saturday (22.8%) and Sunday (22.6%). The highest percentages of alcohol-impaired driver fatal crashes also occurred on Saturday (47.4%) and Sunday (21.1%). Alcohol-impaired driver total crashes peaked in the evening and early morning hours, between 5:00 p.m. and 3:59 a.m. Fatal alcohol-impaired driver crashes varied by hour.

Use of State Beer Tax Funds for DUI Law Enforcement The state’s beer tax funds are used to support DUI enforcement, as well as other alcohol-related enforcement, education/prevention and treatment activities. For FY 2013, the Legislature appropriated $5,118,400 to be distributed from the Alcoholic Beverage Enforcement and Treatment Restricted Account (§32B-2-401) to municipalities and

According to the Utah Highway Safety Office, an alcohol-impaired driver crash occurs in Utah every

five hours.

0.12

0.23

0.09

0.150.16

0.130.12

0.09

0.15

0.08

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

DUI-R

elat

ed D

eath

Rat

e Pe

r 100

Mill

ion

Mile

s Tr

avel

ed

Year

DUI-Related Death RateTrendline


18

counties statewide on a formula basis.2 Funds may be spent in one or more of five general categories: (1) alcohol-related prevention/education; (2) treatment of offenders with alcohol problems; (3) alcohol-related law enforcement, including DUI; (4) prosecution of alcohol-related cases; and (5) confinement of alcohol law offenders. In order to receive beer tax funds, eligible municipalities and counties must submit an annual plan to the Utah Substance Abuse Advisory (USAAV) Council prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Municipalities and counties receiving funding are also required to submit an annual report to the USAAV Council by October 1st of each year, outlining how funds were utilized, whether the programs or projects funded were effective, and certifying the funds were used in accordance with the law. In accordance with the statute, those that do not submit their reports forfeit their funds for the current fiscal year and the funds are allocated to other entities.

The figure to the right and the table below show how FY 2013 funds were utilized, including dollars spent for each allowable activity, as reported in the Beer Tax Funds Annual Reports submitted to the USAAV Council.

2 In accordance with §32B-2-404 (UCA), the State Tax Commission distributes beer tax funds to municipalities and counties in December of each year based upon the following formula: percentage of state population residing in each municipality and county (25%); each municipality’s and county’s percentage of the statewide convictions for all alcohol-related offenses (30%); the percentage of the following in the state that are located in each municipality and county: state stores, package agencies, retail licensees, and off-premise beer retailers (20%); and for confinement and treatment purposes (for persons arrested for or convicted of offenses in which alcohol is a contributing factor) on the basis of the percentage of the state population located in each county (25% to counties only).

3 Recipients may use beer tax funds for more than one of the six categories outlined in the statute.

4 Of the total FY 2013 appropriation of $5,118,400, a net distribution of $5,116,755.80 was allocated via formula to eligible municipalities and counties. The net distribution is determined after the Tax Commission subtracts a fee of $6 per distribution from the total ($1,644 in FY 2013). In addition, the total amount of funding actually expended may be less than the amount distributed because some municipalities and counties did not utilize all of their funding during the fiscal year, in which case they may carry it over into the new fiscal year.

FY 2013 Beer Tax Funds Reports

How Funds Were Used All (170) Entities Reporting

Municipalities and Counties Utilizing

Beer Tax Funds for Each Activity

Beer Tax Funding Expended for Each

Activity Number Percent3 Amount Percent

Alcohol-Related Prevention/Education 55 32.35% $ 188,193.90 3.97% Treatment of Offenders with Alcohol Problems 10 5.88% 776,597.28 16.40% Alcohol-Related Law Enforcement 136 80.00% 2,343,349.01 49.49% Prosecution of Alcohol-Related Cases 46 27.06% 428,044.37 9.04% Confinement of Alcohol Law Offenders 26 15.29% 999,067.93 21.10%

Totals $4,735,252.494 100.0% Source: Utah Substance Abuse Advisory Council, FY 2013 Beer Tax Funds Annual Reports


19

Adjudications and Sanctions DUI offenses are classified either as misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the type of offense and whether it is a repeat offense. The Justice Courts, which are sponsored by municipalities and counties, handle DUI offenses classified as class B misdemeanors. DUI offenses classified as class A misdemeanors and felonies are under the jurisdiction of the state’s District Courts. A DUI offense is classified as a class A misdemeanor if it involves bodily injury, a passenger under 16, or a passenger under 18 if the driver is 21 or older. A DUI offense is classified as a third degree felony if it is a third or subsequent offense within 10 years, if it involves serious bodily injury, or if the person has any prior felony DUI conviction or automobile homicide conviction.

Justice Court DUI Data Justice Court DUI Cases and Outcomes The following table details the 9,023 DUI cases in the Justice Courts during FY 2013. There were 576 fewer cases than in the previous year, a decrease of six percent. About 58 percent of cases resulted in a guilty plea or verdict, with nine percent not guilty or dismissed. This table does not represent the actual DUI conviction rate, however, as it includes cases filed in previous fiscal years that were not resolved until FY 2013. In addition, 2,991 cases were still pending resolution at the close of FY 2013.

Justice Court DUI Case Outcomes

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 % Change FY 12 – FY 13 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Guilty 5,367 53.3% 5,702 59.4% 5,205 57.7% -8.7% Dismissed or Not Guilty 1,826 18.1% 870 9.1% 827 9.2% -4.9% Cases Pending 2,884 28.6% 3,027 31.5% 2,991 33.1% -1.2% TOTAL 10,077 100.0% 9,599 100.0% 9,023 100.0% -6.0% Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

Justice Court Repeat DUI Offender Data The Justice Courts also track how repeat DUI offenders are handled. In the table on the following page, which includes data for fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, the first column shows if the offender was charged as a first-time offender or a repeat offender.

Adjudications & Sanctions

3


20

The second column indicates how many of those in the first column actually met that criterion. The last column shows how the offender was sentenced. In FY 2013 for example, 15 percent of DUI offenders were charged with a second offense, while about 17 percent were actually second-time offenders, and 16 percent were sentenced as second-time offenders. Discrepancies between charges and sentencing are not unusual. An offender’s sentence is dependent upon the conviction, which may or may not be the same as the offense charged due to plea bargains or court procedural issues.

Justice Court Repeat DUI Offender Data for Fiscal Years 2011-20135

Offense Offense Was Charged As

Offense Was Actually

Offense Was Sentenced As

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 1st Offense 84.3% 84.4% 84.7% 81.3% 82.1% 82.2% 83.0% 83.7% 83.6% 2nd Offense 15.6% 15.3% 15.2% 18.1% 17.0% 16.8% 16.8% 16.0% 16.0% 3rd Offense 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 4th Offense 0.0% <0.1% 0.0% <0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% <0.1% 0.1%

5th or Greater Offense 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% <0.1% 0.0%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

Justice Court DUI Case Information and Sanctions Additional DUI-related case information collected by the Justice Courts is shown in the table below. The table includes data for those Justice Courts in the Courts Information System (CORIS). The data indicate in FY 2013 judges ordered offenders to participate in an educational series in 2,629 cases, ordered substance use disorder treatment in 2,144 cases, and that ignition interlock devices were ordered in 767 cases.

Justice Court DUI Case Information and Sanctions FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Number of Justice Courts Providing Data 122 119 121 Blood/Breath Alcohol Content (BAC) Known 3,422 3,621 3,224 Substance Use Disorder Screening and Assessment 3,122 3,794 3,456 Substance Use Disorder Treatment Ordered 2,141 2,409 2,144 Educational Series Ordered 2,729 3,066 2,629 Ignition Interlock Ordered 564 831 767 Supervised (Non-Court) Probation 2,891 3,255 2,916 Electronic Monitoring 187 189 214 Enhancement Notification NA 1,113 1,162 Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

5 The cases in the table represent only those for which the number of the offense was known. In addition, the following cases were not included: bail forfeiture, deceased, declined, dismissed, not guilty, remanded, and transferred.


21

District Court DUI Data As shown in the table below, Utah’s District Courts disposed 2,305 DUI cases during FY 2013, 203 more than in FY 2012.

DUI in Utah’s District Courts

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

% Change FY 12 – FY 13

District Court Cases Disposed 2,115 2,102 2,305 +9.7% Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

District Court DUI Case Outcomes The table below shows case outcomes by Judicial District for the 2,305 DUI cases disposed by Utah’s eight District Courts during FY 2013. Nearly 76 percent of the cases resulted in a guilty plea or verdict, and the defendant was found not guilty in only one case. Thirteen percent of the cases were dismissed. This table is not a depiction of the District Courts’ actual DUI conviction rates, as it includes only those cases that were disposed during FY 2013. Pending cases were not included in the data analysis.

FY 2013 District Court DUI Case Outcomes by Judicial District DUI Case Outcomes

Judicial District Total

Percent 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

Deceased 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 10 0.4% Declined Prosecution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Dismissed 36 46 85 66 12 18 14 25 302 13.1% Diversion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Guilty 128 344 553 366 109 46 67 131 1,744 75.7% No Contest 1 1 4 22 1 1 1 3 34 1.5% Not Guilty 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 < 0.1% Plea in Abeyance 2 3 2 3 1 4 1 3 19 0.8% Remanded 0 4 65 7 5 0 0 1 82 3.6% Transferred 0 1 81 30 0 0 1 0 113 4.9% TOTAL 167 400 791 496 130 69 85 167 2,305 100.0% Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

District Court Repeat DUI Offender Data The District Courts also track how repeat DUI offenders are handled. In the table on the following page, which includes data for fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, the first column shows if the offender was charged as a first-time offender or a repeat offender. The second column indicates how many of those in the first column actually met that criterion. The last column shows how the offender was sentenced. In FY 2013 for example, 31 percent of DUI offenders were charged with a third offense, while 25 percent were actually third-time offenders, and 23 percent were sentenced as third-time offenders. Discrepancies between charges and sentencing are not unusual. An offender’s sentence is dependent upon the conviction, which may or may not be the same as the offense charged due to plea bargains or court procedural issues.


22

District Court Repeat DUI Offender Data for Fiscal Years 2011-20136

Offense Offense Was Charged As

Offense Was Actually

Offense Was Sentenced As

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 1st Offense 51% 46% 49% 47% 47% 52% 53% 52% 56% 2nd Offense 15% 18% 16% 19% 21% 18% 18% 19% 18% 3rd Offense 28% 30% 31% 24% 25% 25% 22% 25% 23% 4th Offense 4% 3% 1% 6% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1%

5th-10th Offense 2% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

District Court DUI Case Information and Sanctions Other DUI-related case information, including sanctions ordered, is also collected by the District Courts. The table below includes the FY 2013 data for those cases where the values were known. The table shows judges ordered offenders to participate in an educational series in 308 cases, ordered substance use disorder treatment in 630 cases, and that ignition interlock devices were ordered in 275 cases.

District Court DUI Case Information and Sanctions FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

Blood/Breath Alcohol Content (BAC) Known 451 462 455 Substance Use Disorder Screening and Assessment 691 623 693 Substance Use Disorder Treatment Ordered 674 613 630 Educational Series Ordered 337 303 308 Ignition Interlock Ordered 295 246 275 Supervised (Non-Court) Probation 792 793 887 Electronic Monitoring 119 101 116 Enhancement Notification 100% 100% 100% Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

The DUI Sentencing Matrix included at the end of this report provides detailed information regarding DUI offense classifications and sanctions.

6 The cases in the table represent only those for which the number of the offense was known. In addition, the following cases were not included: bail forfeiture, deceased, declined, dismissed, not guilty, remanded, and transferred.


23

Driver License Control The Department of Public Safety’s Driver License Division is required to suspend or revoke the license of a person who has been convicted or sanctioned for the following:

• Driving under the influence • Driving with any measurable controlled substance metabolite in the body • Not a Drop violation • Refusal to submit to a chemical test • Automobile homicide • “No-alcohol” conditional license • Alcohol restricted driver (ARD) violation • Interlock restricted driver (IRD) conviction

Alcohol Hearing Statistics When a driver is arrested for DUI, the license is taken and a 30-day temporary license is issued. Drivers may request a license hearing within 10 days, and the Driver License Division must schedule the hearing within the 30-day period of the temporary license.

As shown in the table below, there were 5,206 requested alcohol hearings held in FY 2013. The Division is unable to take any action against a driver if the arresting officer does not appear at the hearing. To improve appearance rates, the Division offers a telephonic option whereby officers or offenders can phone in for the hearing.

Driver License Control

4

FY 2013 Alcohol Hearing Statistics ACD Code Total # of

Hearings No

Officer No Officer Telephonic

Other No Action

Total No Action

Total Telephonic

Per Se 4,475 847 Not Available 660 1,507 Not Available

Not a Drop 110 23 Not Available 6 41 Not Available

Refusal 621 116 Not Available 49 165 Not Available

TOTAL 5,206 986 Not Available 715 1,713 Not Available

Source: Utah Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division


24


25

Screening, Assessment, Education and Treatment

Screening and Assessment As part of any sentence for a DUI offense, Utah law requires offenders to participate in a screening and, if indicated by the screening, an assessment. A screening involves gathering information that is used to determine if an individual has a problem with alcohol and/or other drug abuse, and if so, whether an in-depth clinical assessment is appropriate. An assessment is a collection of detailed information concerning the individual’s alcohol and/or other drug abuse, emotional and physical health, social roles, and other relevant areas of the individual’s life. The assessment is used to determine the need for substance use disorder treatment.7 The following table shows the orders for substance use disorder screening and assessment by the District and Justice Courts in FY 2013, for those cases where the values were known.

Substance Use Disorder Screening and Assessment Ordered by the Courts FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

Justice Courts 3,122 3,794 3,456 District Courts 691 623 693 Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

Education For a first DUI offense and for a second offense within 10 years, the sentence must include participation in an educational series if the court does not order treatment. The purpose of DUI education is to “address any problems or risk factors that appear to

7 Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Screening and Assessment for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Among Adults in the Criminal Justice System, Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, #7.

Assessment, Education & Treatment

5


26

be related to use of alcohol and other drugs and attempt to help the individual recognize the harmful consequences of inappropriate use, with special emphasis placed on the dangers of drinking and driving.”8 Utah DUI offenders sentenced to an educational series attend the PRIME For Life® (PFL) program developed by the Prevention Research Institute (PRI). “PRIME For Life® is a motivational intervention that provides education and strategies for individuals who have experienced problems due to high-risk alcohol or drug use. PFL is an interactive experience designed to motivate and guide individuals toward making low-risk choices and adopting more accurate beliefs about personal risk that will support those low-risk choices. The program provides research-based, low-risk guidelines and assists participants in making choices to best protect what they value.”9

In the PFL program, “low-risk choices are defined as abstinence from drug use. The guidelines for alcohol include abstinence for those who have already developed alcoholism; otherwise no more than one standard drink (1/2 ounce of pure alcohol) in an hour, two standard drinks daily, or three standard drinks on any day (known as the 0-1-2-3 guidelines). The peak amount per week is 14 standard drinks.” High-risk choices are defined as any use that causes impairment or increases overall risk for health problems or premature death. Examples include using illegal drugs, prescription drugs other than as prescribed, or exceeding the 0-1-2-3 guidelines for alcohol. Additionally, PFL identifies some situations (e.g., driving, illness, medications, and workplace) when any amount of use may be high-risk.”10

The following table shows the orders for the educational series by the Justice and District Courts in FY 2013, for those cases where values were known.

Educational Series Ordered by the Courts FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Justice Courts 2,729 3,066 2,629 District Courts 337 303 308 Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

PRI conducts periodic studies of PFL participants to measure the impact on changing beliefs about alcohol and other drug use, understanding the risks associated with alcohol/drug use, and desire to change personal drinking and drug use behaviors. In previous years this study was published annually; however, because the findings have been virtually identical from year to year, PRI now publishes the study less frequently. The most recent study provides data on 442 Utahns who participated in the PFL program during 2011, nearly all of whom were ordered to PFL following a substance-

8 Utah Sentencing Commission, DUI Best Sentencing Practices Guidebook, 2003.

9Stafford, P., Beadnell, B., Rosengren, D.B., Carter-Lunceford, C., & Huynh, H. (2012, April). PRIME For Life UTAH 2011 Evaluation Report Executive Summary. Lexington, KY: Prevention Research Institute.

10 Ibid.


27

related arrest. Participants ranged in age from 15 to 74, with an average age of 29. Findings from this study are summarized in the table below and on the following page.11

2011 Utah PRIME For Life Participant Characteristics and Outcomes Gender Male 65% Female 35%

Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 76% Hispanic 14% Multiracial 4% Other 6%

Type of Offense Impaired Driving 59% At Least One Previous Arrest for Impaired Driving 15% Drug Possession 10% Underage Drinking 22% Not Arrested or Referred by Court 2% Other 7%

Key Findings Pretest Posttest High Risk Attitudes and Beliefs

What is the maximum number of drinks you could drink in a day before it is high risk for you? - 0-3 drinks - 4+ drinks

Perceived risk for alcoholism/addiction: - I could develop alcoholism - I could develop drug addiction

Readiness for Change

Usual number of drinks consumed in a day: - Abstain - 1-3 drinks - 4+ drinks

How motivated are you to reduce or maintain

your drinking at low-risk levels? - A lot/Extremely - A little/Somewhat - Not at all

41% 59%

43% 56%

23% 17% 60%

65% 25% 10%

70% 30%

70% 70%

48% 35% 17%

81% 14% 5%

11Ibid.


28

2011 Utah PRIME For Life Participant Characteristics and Outcomes

How motivated are you to reduce or maintain your drug use at low-risk levels? - A lot/Extremely - A little/Somewhat - Not at all

Posttest: Confidence Outweighs Temptation

(Confidence and Temptation Scales Range is 12 to 60.) - Confidence in ability to make low-risk choices - Temptation to make high-risk choices

Pretest

69% 18% 13%

NA

NA

Posttest

74% 16% 10%

35.3

23.2 Most participants in PRIME for Life during 2011 reported they agreed or strongly agreed PFL helped them in the following areas:

Forming detailed plans (87%), Deciding to drink or use drugs less (82%), Feeling confident about making changes (85%), and Developing skills (88%).

Treatment For a first and second DUI offense, the court may order treatment; for a third or subsequent offense within 10 years, the court must order substance use disorder treatment. “Treatment involves the application of planned procedures to identify and change patterns of behavior that are maladaptive, destructive, and/or injurious to health; or to restore appropriate levels of physical, psychological and/or social functioning. DUI offenders assessed as meeting the diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder should participate in a treatment program in addition to, or in lieu of, the educational course.”12 Treatment should address both alcohol and other drug problems. The level of treatment needed (e.g., day treatment, outpatient, intensive outpatient, residential) is determined by the assessment on the basis of the severity of the substance use disorder. The table below shows the orders for substance use disorder treatment by the Justice and District Courts in FY 2013, for those cases where the values were known.

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Ordered by the Courts FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

Justice Court 2,141 2,409 2,144 District Court 674 613 630 Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

12 Utah Sentencing Commission, DUI Best Sentencing Practices Guidebook, 2003.


29

Billboard

Partnership with Gateway Mall

Partnership with UTA Partnership with Lowe’s

(BBQ Apron)

Partnership with Lumpy’s “Leprechauns Against

Drunk Driving”

Utah’s Impaired Driving Media Campaign

Impaired Driving Media Campaign

6 The Utah Department of Public Safety Highway Safety Office’s statewide media, high-visibility enforcement, and community outreach campaign focuses on changing Utah citizens’ current perceptions and behaviors regarding driving under the influence of alcohol. This focus supports the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” campaign goal to provide resources to communities to create deterrence through public and private partnerships.

Partnership with Autorama

UTAH DUI SENTENCING MATRIX (Current as of May 14, 2013)

Court-Ordered Sentencing

MISDEMEANOR DUI

FELONY DUI FIRST OFFENSE SECOND OFFENSE

WITHIN 10 YEARS

CLASSIFICATION (§41-6a-503)

CLASS B MISDEMEANOR

CLASS A MISDEMEANOR:

$ if bodily injury1 $ if passenger is under 16 $ if passenger is under 18 and driver is 21 or older

CLASS B MISDEMEANOR

CLASS A MISDEMEANOR:

$ if bodily injury1 $ if passenger under 16 $ if passenger is under 18 and driver is 21 or older

THIRD DEGREE FELONY $ if third or subsequent offense

within 10 years $ if serious bodily injury1 $ if any prior felony DUI

conviction or automobile homicide1 conviction

Jail (§41-6a-505)

SHALL order: 48 consecutive hours OR 48 hours compensatory service OR 48 hours electronic home confinement2

SHALL order: 240 consecutive hours OR 240 hours compensatory service OR 240 hours electronic home confinement2

SHALL order: 0-5 year prison term OR 1,500 hours jail (62.5 days) OR 1,500 hours electronic home confinement2

Fine, Surcharge, and Court Security Fee (§41-6a-505) (§51-9-401)

SHALL order: $700 minimum fine plus a $630 surcharge plus a $40 court security fee

SHALL order: $800 minimum fine plus a $720 surcharge plus a $40 court security fee

SHALL order: $1,500 minimum fine plus a $1,350 surcharge plus a $40 court security fee, unless a 0-5 prison term is imposed

Screening, Assessment, Educational Series, Treatment (§41-6a-505)

SHALL order: $ Screening $ Assessment (if found

appropriate by screening) $ Educational series, unless

treatment is ordered MAY order: $ Treatment

SHALL order: $ Screening $ Assessment (if found

appropriate by screening) $ Educational series, unless

treatment is ordered MAY order: $ Treatment

SHALL order: $ Screening $ Assessment $ Intensive treatment or

inpatient treatment and aftercare for not less than 240 hours, unless 0-5 prison term is imposed

Probation3 (§41-6a-507)

MAY order supervised probation

SHALL order supervised probation

SHALL order supervised probation if 0-5 prison term is not imposed

Ignition Interlock4 (§41-6a-518) (§41-6a-530)

MAY order: $ Ignition interlock SHALL order: $ Interlock if under 21 $ Interlock for an ARD5

violation OR describe on the record why such order not appropriate

MAY order: $ Ignition interlock SHALL order: $ Interlock if under 21 $ Interlock for an ARD5 violation OR describe on the record why such order not appropriate

MAY order: $ Ignition interlock SHALL order: $ Interlock if under 21 $ Interlock for an ARD5 violation OR describe on the record why such order not appropriate

High BAC (.16 or higher)

(§41-6a-505)

SHALL order: $ Supervised probation3 $ Treatment and interlock4

and/or ankle attached continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring device and/or electronic home confinement2 OR describe on the record why such order(s) not appropriate

SHALL order: $ Supervised probation3 $ Treatment and interlock4


SHALL order: $ Supervised probation3 if 0-5

prison term is not imposed $ Treatment and interlock4


Driver License Suspension (§41-6a-509)

Court MAY order additional 90 days, 120 days, 180 days, one year or 2 years



1A person is guilty of a separate offense for each victim suffering bodily injury, serious bodily injury or death, whether or not the injuries arise from the same episode of driving. 2See §41-6a-506 for electronic home confinement provisions. 3Supervised probation is also required for all violations of §41-6a-517 (driving with any measurable controlled substance or metabolite in the body). 4Adoption of the ignition interlock restricted driver (IRD) provision (§41-6a-518.2) does not change the obligation of judges to impose interlock as a condition of probation. 5Alcohol restricted driver

The following statutory provisions also apply to DUI offenders, although they do not require a court order. Failure to comply carries additional criminal sanctions.

Statutory Provisions

FIRST OFFENSE

SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES WITHIN 10 YEARS

Driver License Denial, Suspension, or Revocation Driving Under the Influence/ DUI Conviction (§41-6a-509)

If 21 or older: 120 days

If 19-20: Longer of one year or until 21st birthday

If under 19: Until 21st birthday

Early License Reinstatement for Drivers Under 21: Court may order shortening of the suspension period after 6 months if the person completes a screening; completes an assessment if appropriate; completes an education series or substance abuse treatment, as deemed appropriate by the court; has not been convicted of a violation of a motor vehicle law during the suspension period; has complied with all terms of probation or all court orders if not ordered to probation; and provides a sworn statement to the court that the person has not unlawfully consumed alcohol during the suspension period.

If 21 or older: 2 years

If 19-20: Longer of 2 years or until 21st birthday


Driving with Controlled Substance/ Metabolite in Body Conviction (§41-6a-517)


If 19-20: Longer of one year or until 21st birthday


Early License Reinstatement for Drivers Under 21: Same as above, but sworn statement must include the person has not consumed a controlled substance not prescribed by a practitioner during the suspension period.

If 21 or older: 2 years

If 19-20: Longer of two years or until 21st birthday


Refusal of Chemical Test (§41-6a-521)

If 21 or older: 18 months

If under 21: Longer of 2 years or until 21st

birthday

If 21 or older: 36 months

If under 21: Longer of 36 months or until 21st birthday

Per se Arrest (§53-3-223) ≥ .08 BAC, impaired to degree unsafe to drive, operating with metabolite of drug in system


If under 21: 6 months If 21 or older: 2 years

If under 21: Longer of 2 years or until 21st birthday

Not A Drop (§53-3-231)

A person under 21 may not operate a vehicle or motorboat with detectable alcohol in body

If under 21: Until successful completion of substance abuse program recommendation, but not less than 6 months

If under 21: Until successful completion of substance abuse program recommendation, and the longer of 2 years or until 21st birthday

Failure to Install or Removal of Ignition Interlock Device (§53-3-1007)

An individual who is an interlock restricted driver (IRD) shall have their driving privilege suspended until they have had an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle. If the interlock device is removed prior to the ending date of the interlock restriction period, the driver license shall be re-suspended until an ignition interlock device is re-installed. This suspension may be imposed in addition to other license sanctions as listed above.

Other Sanctions

IRD – Interlock Restricted Driver (§41-6a-518.2)

An “interlock restricted driver” may not operate a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock system.

• 18 months IRD for 1st DUI (§41-6a-502) if over 21 • 3 years IRD for 1st Driving Without Ignition Interlock Device if IRD (§41-6a-518.2), Refusal to Submit to

Chemical Test (§41-6a-521), or 1st DUI (§41-6a-502) if under 21 • 3 years IRD for a combination of two of the following within 10 years: DUI (§41-6a-502), Refusal to Submit to

Chemical Test (§41-6a-521), Controlled Substance/Metabolite (§41-6a-517), Alcohol-Related Reckless (§41-6a-512 – only violations prior to July 1, 2008), Impaired Driving (§41-6a-502.5), Driving with Controlled Substance/Bodily Injury or Death (§58-37-8(2)(g)), or Automobile Homicide (§76-5-207)

• 6 years IRD for Felony DUI (§41-6a-502) • 10 years IRD for Automobile Homicide (§76-5-207) Note: Abeyances count as convictions, as defined in §41-6a-501; if all offenses are for Controlled Substance/Metabolite convictions, IRD does not apply

ARD – Alcohol Restricted Driver (§41-6a-529)

An “alcohol restricted driver” may not operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle with any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in the person’s body.

• 2 years ARD for 1st DUI (§41-6a-502), Alcohol-Related Reckless (only violations prior to July 1, 2008), or Impaired Driving (§41-6a-502.5)

• 2 years ARD for any Per se offense (§53-3-223) • 3 years ARD for any driving without an IID if an IRD (§41-6a-518.2) or driving with alcohol in body if an ARD

(§41-6a-530) offense • 5 years ARD for 1st Refusal to Submit to Test (§41-6a-521) or Class A misdemeanor DUI (§41-6a-502) • 10 years ARD for 2nd offense, if 2nd offense is DUI (§41-6a-502), Alcohol-Related Reckless (only violations

prior to July 1, 2008), Impaired Driving (§41-6a-502.5), or Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test (§41-6a-521); and 1st offense is DUI (§41-6a-502), Alcohol-Related Reckless (only violations prior to July 1, 2008), or Impaired Driving (§41-6a-502.5)

• Lifetime ARD for any Felony DUI (§41-6a-502) or Automobile Homicide (§76-5-207) Note: Abeyances count as convictions as stated in §53-3-229, excluding ARD and IRD abeyances; if Per se is drug only or metabolite, ARD does not apply.

CCJJ Utah State Capitol Complex

Senate Office Building, Suite 330 P.O. Box 142330

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2330 Phone: 801-538-1031 • Fax: 801-538-1024

http://justice.utah.gov

http://justice.utah.gov/

utah commission on criminal and juvenile ...usaav.utah.gov/alcohol/2013 dui annual...

Documents